Ben Summerskill, crowing over the court decision against the Christian couple, goes too far. He points to Christians in the Middle East who are the targets of sectarian killings, to make the point that those in this country have it easy. Well, indeed. And the same argument rebounds on him. Does he think getting turned away from a hotel can be compared to what happens to gay people in the same countries?
The ruling is disturbing for a number of reasons, such as:
Firstly, the judge indicates that the concept of the law being discovered, a fundamental principle of common law, is alien to our current regime. Now the law is whatever the latest legislation says it is. This should make people like Summerskill pause for thought. Do they not recall the past, when this very same argument could have been used to throw them in jail? Would they humbly accept condemnation if the dial swung back? Or would they, then and only then, rediscover the concept of the law being subject to justice and not the whim of the current ruling class? Let Ben Summerskill follow his own argument to another country where homosexuality is still a crime. Are we to assume that Ben will lionise the law in that circumstance too?
Secondly, it shows, yet again, that the concept of private property has been virtually destroyed. The idea that it is their hotel, and they can let whoever they want stay, and turn away whoever they want, has gone.
UPDATE: Sean Gabb says it better than me, in this press release from the Libertarian Alliance
The ruling is disturbing for a number of reasons, such as:
Firstly, the judge indicates that the concept of the law being discovered, a fundamental principle of common law, is alien to our current regime. Now the law is whatever the latest legislation says it is. This should make people like Summerskill pause for thought. Do they not recall the past, when this very same argument could have been used to throw them in jail? Would they humbly accept condemnation if the dial swung back? Or would they, then and only then, rediscover the concept of the law being subject to justice and not the whim of the current ruling class? Let Ben Summerskill follow his own argument to another country where homosexuality is still a crime. Are we to assume that Ben will lionise the law in that circumstance too?
Secondly, it shows, yet again, that the concept of private property has been virtually destroyed. The idea that it is their hotel, and they can let whoever they want stay, and turn away whoever they want, has gone.
UPDATE: Sean Gabb says it better than me, in this press release from the Libertarian Alliance
2 comments:
Northnorwester covered this too - it's so effing appalling.
James,
the original version of the story I saw contained the speech of the judge and it was indeed appalling. He was basically saying the law is whatever the current ruling class say it is, totally against the principles of English common law. Not that that should surprise anyone, the ruling class have forever erected courts above the common law in order to apply their version of law, such as admiralty courts to try smugglers, because the juries always let them off.
Post a Comment